The NWO’s Economic Babylon Begins…, page 6

privacy

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 12 times

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 02:14 AM by TheColdDragon

reply to post by SGTChas

I must imagine you are an evangelical, and require condemnation of sinners and a fiery hell in order to validate your understanding of Christ.

Christ himself said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."

And Christ preached of unmitigated, total and unending forgiveness for all sins. He himself forgave his Apostles for the betrayals they would visit upon him.

I'm sorry if uncompromising Love and Compassion somehow fly in the face of your god of Wroth and Jealousy.

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 02:19 AM by TheColdDragon

reply to post by Anonymous Avatar

True on all counts... and of my own opinion, I already stated; I believe there are people in this world that wish to see bible prophecy fulfilled, in particular revelations.... for they desire power and death, it is what consumes them daily.

So whether or not the prophecy's are true, it depends more on if the people in power want them to be true.

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 02:29 AM by SGTChas

Cold Dragon, I have patience for agnostics, atheist, Muslims, rabid anti-Christians and I even have patience for Baptist (sorry, loving Baptist joke), but claimed Christians that pervert the Word of God by claiming it says what it plainly does not, or claiming the Word does not say what it plainly does, I have no patience for – you have been ignored for sure now. Bloviate away.

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 03:27 AM by nenothtu

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by SGTChas

Hmmm....

Education is the enemy.

Secular Humanism is the Enemy.

So God is both against being smart and also against Humans being responsible to only themselves.

As a Christian, I must laugh at this.

If I might be so bold as to ask, what variety of 'christian' are you? Forgive my ignorance, but I've not run across a brand of 'christianity' that denies the divinity of God, and bestows divinity on mere mortals before.

Secular humanism has been 'the enemy' of not just christianity, but ALL religions, since its inception. It's very name is a bold statement of that fact.

But I truly AM curious as to which flavor of 'christianity' allows for humans to be answerable only to themselves, never having to answer to God. Why bother with the Bible at all, then? Or does your 'church' burn them?

nenothtu out

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 04:16 AM by nenothtu

Originally posted by SGTChas
Cold Dragon, I have patience for agnostics, atheist, Muslims, rabid anti-Christians and I even have patience for Baptist (sorry, loving Baptist joke), but claimed Christians that pervert the Word of God by claiming it says what it plainly does not, or claiming the Word does not say what it plainly does, I have no patience for – you have been ignored for sure now. Bloviate away.

Sarge, I don't think he's perverting the Bible, so much as denying it's veracity. I've yet to see him display any knowledge of the contents thereof, so much as dismissing it with a blanket denial. I've yet to see him back up those denials with any sort of quotes from it, and refutations of them. To be honest, I'm not at all sure that he knows what it says, much less being possessed of an ability to rebut it.

I find it strange that an individual can claim 'christianity', and then proceed to deny the only validated source for Christ's teachings. Sure, there is an arguably valid mention of Christ in the works of Josephus, but that has been contested as spurious, and surely is very little to base an entire religion on regardless of validity. Likewise the Gnostic gospels, except that they have by and large been invalidated.

I am confused as to how one can claim to be a 'devout christian', and proceed to attempt invalidation of the only basis for that belief. Do these people (in his religion) think they have a direct phone link to Deity, and are thus free to invalidate the only source for that belief, and replace it with their own Prophecy? If that is the case, why not make up their own god, rather than try usurping an already established one? It's all so confusing.

Add to that the attempt at the invalidation of mathematics, and the attack on the validity of science based not on the merits of the scientific work, but rather based on an attack on the character of the scientist ( a subjective proposition at best), in nothing more than an attempt to dismiss evidence by sidestepping it, and I must conclude that this individual subject to delusions of his own grandeur (since he acknowledges no higher authority), and is more to be pitied than either feared or hated.

nenothtu out

edit: no offense intended to our muslim brother. I am acutely aware of the muslim view of Isa, and the refutation of his deity while attempting to preserve his prophethood. This exchange has no bearing on that one whatsoever. To tell the truth, TheColdDragon's view of Jesus APPEARS to be more in line with the Islamic conception than the Christian one, but is not at all the same as either from what I can tell. appearances can be deceiving.

[edit on 2009/5/28 by nenothtu]

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 10:26 AM by Anonymous Avatar

reply to post by TheColdDragon

Just as an outsider watching this conversation I think you both have mistaken each other's intentions drastically. From my point of view I think you both may miss out on meeting someone of incredible potential and value in the name of arguing just judging from the posts in this thread alone. I happen to know Chas a bit better and I hold him in very high regards in more ways than I care to describe in this post. I also like your line of thoughts, your articulations, and most importantly if you can see what is coming, biblical prophecy or not, and you are a freedom lover then that makes you my friend and ally.

I say this from the point of view of someone who believes in no religion. However I have learned that there is immense insight, truth, and value in seeing the world from multiple perspectives. =)

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 10:50 AM by TheColdDragon

reply to post by nenothtu

A Christian is someone who lives the teachings of Christ as example. The problem in consolidating Christianity with the Bible is that Christ's own perspective is only tangentially related to in the Bible.

Christ himself said that he is the completing of the old testament, and the beginning of the new covenant with God... and yet modern Christianity quotes and repeatedly supports its viewpoints with the Old Testament.

I believe in Christ, his sacrifice... but more importantly, I believe in the teachings he imparted in life. The church as a whole has perverted and twisted the teachings of Christ into a control mechanism of self-shame and humility, whereas Christ had attempted to lift man up beyond submission to God so that man could be one with the Divine Creator.

Love thy Enemy and turn the other cheek. Let he without sin cast the first stone.

The closest denomination that I find myself associating with is the Gnostics, who are heretics and blasphemers to the Mother Church, and who are devout in their own way.

I do not need the approval of either a Church, a Book or other Worshippers to love Yeshua, to value his mercy and light. And I think you may mistake me if you believe that merely because I decry Sin as something that exists that I think people should Sin to their hearts content.

Further, I did not invalidate Mathematics in my responses. SGTChas cannot in one post site how Mathematics reveals some esoteric truth to the bible which supports Prophecy and then in another Slander a Stanford Professor whose whole life has been Mathematics. (Slander)

Mathematics is self-consistant and concrete. It, above most any other science, is perfect; but that does not mean it cannot be abused for all sorts of things. Just because it stays self consistent doesn't mean that one particular proof isn't just proving nonsense.

So i see this just as a mere misunderstanding of what Math is, and how Math as a support argument can be called questionable depending on what the argument is, not on what the math is.

And if you've never encountered this sort of Christianity before, it's likely because you don't associate much with Gnostics; We are something of a varied bunch.

To be Christian has nothing to do with a book. It has everything to do with Christ. If you'd like, I can start spewing scripture like other Christians do. I just see little point in it, as I got tired of doing that a long long time ago.

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 11:47 AM by nenothtu

reply to post by TheColdDragon

Ahhh... I see. Your claim to Gnosticism goes a long way in explaining your viewpoint. I wasn't aware that any Gnostics still existed, but I do have a cursory familiarity with their doctrine, having read most of their founding documents (such as still exist) at one time or another.

In the writings of the Gnostics, it is evident that they took issue with the teachings of Christ as presented, and set about rewriting for themselves what he REALLY meant, in spite of the fact that they had no contact points with him. Sketchy business that, at best.

Regarding the Old Testament, the mere 'completion' of a thing doesn't automatically call for it to be discarded, like so much trash. He said He came to 'fulfill' the law. Laws are fulfilled every day, but they somehow never fall off the books for all of that. At no point, save perhaps in the Gnostic writings, did Jesus ever say that man was beyond the authority of God, and was an authority to himself, unanswerable to God.

"Love thy Enemy and turn the other cheek. Let he without sin cast the first stone. " and "to value his mercy and light" do not stand alone. To take these teachings out of context, and apply only them, to the exclusion of the rest, presents a skewed vision of the total person of Christ. All was, and is, not sweetness, light, and floating butterflies. Perhaps I do you a disservice, and am prepared to admit that you may not have explained your entire vision of the Christ. Love will only carry one so far, before the moneychangers must be driven from the temple by force. "Christ preached of unmitigated, total and unending forgiveness for all sins" is not a complete or correct statement.

To be honest, I'm not clear on the whole concept of mathematics validating the Bible. That question is out of my purview. Your blanket assertion that:

Incidentally, Mathematics is a very weak argument to bring up as proof. Mathematical proofs can demonstrate everything, even things that are effectively impossible.

I could prove, with math, that you are entirely composed of beetles... so really, with a creative enough proof, you can discover all sorts of amazing things in the bible... which are only there because you made the math fit the situation."

IS within my purview, and is incorrect on the face of it, as well as inconsistent with your statement that:

Mathematics is self-consistant and concrete. It, above most any other science, is perfect; but that does not mean it cannot be abused for all sorts of things. Just because it stays self consistent doesn't mean that one particular proof isn't just proving nonsense.

Stanford Mathematician notwithstanding. Either mathematics are valid, or they are not. They can't be used to prove a patent falsehood, and at the same time remain valid mathematics. The mathematic 'proofs' of anything that is demonstrably false can always be shown to be flawed.

Be that as it may, I'm not here to 'convert' you. There's not a 'missionary' bone in my body. Believe as you will, I have no problem with your determination of your own destiny. That's something we all will take up in due course with whomever we prove out to be answerable to. I do appreciate your taking the time to enlighten me as to your thoughts, however.

nenothtu out

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 08:02 PM by TheColdDragon

reply to post by nenothtu

Concerning your understanding of mathematics, Math can be self-consistent and prove something nonsensical provided that the proof is designed for that purpose. The math remains self consistent, even if it refers to something inaccurate from a rational point of view.

Math, in and of itself, is a tool. You can use a hammer to kill someone and be completely correct that the hammer didn't kill them, but it was used to do so.

Likewise, Math can be used to "prove" some sort of esoteric numerology in the bible. This does not mean that the theory is accurate. The numbers and proofs used to produce said result will always remain self consistent within their own context; the Math does not comment on the validity of its own proof, its concern is to be self consistent within the proof.

As such.... Math can prove the impossible, but it doesn't make the impossible possible. The Professor I spoke of (Professor Bump, Emeritus) is one of the high level mathematicians in the U.S. He isn't an ethicist, a theologist or any other ist in the book. He's a Mathematician and he would just as readily tell you that Math can be used to describe the imaginary just as easily as it describes the real.

reply posted on 28-5-2009 @ 08:10 PM by TheColdDragon

Originally posted by nenothtu
In the writings of the Gnostics, it is evident that they took issue with the teachings of Christ as presented, and set about rewriting for themselves what he REALLY meant, in spite of the fact that they had no contact points with him. Sketchy business that, at best.

Such is presumed, it is factual that the Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic texts are just as valid as all the texts of the bible; every book was written a long while after Christ's death (Gnostic or otherwise), and the Gnostic texts were discarded during the Council of Nycaea when the "OFFICIAL" bible was born.

Since then the Gnostics have been relegrated to Apocrypha due to their conflict with Catholic teachings, and the Cathars willingly burned themselves alive rather than convert to Catholicism and repent the sin of apocryphal worship. (The Cathars are an interesting subject).

Regarding the Old Testament, the mere 'completion' of a thing doesn't automatically call for it to be discarded, like so much trash. He said He came to 'fulfill' the law. Laws are fulfilled every day, but they somehow never fall off the books for all of that. At no point, save perhaps in the Gnostic writings, did Jesus ever say that man was beyond the authority of God, and was an authority to himself, unanswerable to God.

You're assuming that somewhere it was stated that man was beyond the Authority of God; Man is considered a part of the divine in Gnostic teachings, thusly equal to his maker. This does not mean that God does not hold dominion over man, what this means is God wishes us to act equal to him. I am certain if God wished, he could smite all mankind in an instant; The Gnostic interpretation is that God wishes man to be Godly out of self betterment, NOT out of fear of punishment.

"Love thy Enemy and turn the other cheek. Let he without sin cast the first stone. " and "to value his mercy and light" do not stand alone. To take these teachings out of context, and apply only them, to the exclusion of the rest, presents a skewed vision of the total person of Christ. All was, and is, not sweetness, light, and floating butterflies. Perhaps I do you a disservice, and am prepared to admit that you may not have explained your entire vision of the Christ. Love will only carry one so far, before the moneychangers must be driven from the temple by force. "Christ preached of unmitigated, total and unending forgiveness for all sins" is not a complete or correct statement.

The message of Christ was almost uniformly a good one of love, compassion, understanding, reason, tolerance, acceptance, forgiveness and virtue. I must wonder, however, if Christ himself was not prescient of our current day as the son of God when it came to the Moneylenders in the temple; Usury was the only thing that angered Christ, and boy did he get angry. If his anger was any indication, Userers are possibly the worst of mankind... look at today, "For Love of money is the root of all mankinds suffering".

Be that as it may, I'm not here to 'convert' you. There's not a 'missionary' bone in my body. Believe as you will, I have no problem with your determination of your own destiny. That's something we all will take up in due course with whomever we prove out to be answerable to. I do appreciate your taking the time to enlighten me as to your thoughts, however.

nenothtu out

And if by chance I am wrong in my beliefs, I shall surely know of that when my time comes. Whether I'll be repentant to any wrongness is another matter that I shall have to decide then as well.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by TheColdDragon]

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 09:27 AM by reluctantpawn

Thank you for explaining your beliefs. It helps me to understand your thoyght process. It also helps to understand that you were not trolling as was presumed by me. For that I owe you an apology.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 03:41 PM by TheColdDragon

reply to post by reluctantpawn

You are quite welcome, thank you for your kind response.

It often is easy to assume if someone has a problem with Christians that they themselves are not Christian, and are part of some secular plot to destroy faith... it makes sense on the face of it, but not beyond that.

I just happen to be a skeptic also, and am wary of deceptions that are pleasing to the eye and soul... as such, It would be cool to have some concrete proof of biblical accuracy, but I am cautious whenever people make claims or suppositions such as there is amazing math in the good book, or someone discovered Noah's ark atop a mountain.